Mohler, Dever, and Duncan issue statement in support of C.J. Mahaney

Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, and Lig Duncan have issued a statement expressing their love for and confidence in C. J. Mahaney. You need to read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

We have stood beside our friend, C. J. Mahaney, and we can speak to his personal integrity… A Christian leader, charged with any credible, serious, and direct wrongdoing, would usually be well advised to step down from public ministry. No such accusation of direct wrongdoing was ever made against C. J. Mahaney. Instead, he was charged with founding a ministry and for teaching doctrines and principles that are held to be true by vast millions of American evangelicals. For this reason, we, along with many others, refused to step away from C. J. in any way. We do not regret that decision. We are profoundly thankful for C. J. as friend, and we are equally thankful for the vast influence for good he has been among so many Gospel-minded people.

I am so thankful to see these men release this statement. Consider this my cosign. Read the rest here.

21 Responses to Mohler, Dever, and Duncan issue statement in support of C.J. Mahaney

The allegation against Mahaney is that he violated mandatory reporting requirements, advising his subordinates to handle the matter through church discipline. At least, that’s the sense I get from reading the amended lawsuit.

I have greatly benefited from Mahaney’s ministry and deeply love and respect the leadership of T4G. But CJ was listed in the lawsuit as one of the defendants, and he was pastor of CLC while the abuse was supposedly being covered up. I don’t feel like T4G’s response is enough. This is a tough situation. Your thoughts?

I’m frankly baffled that so many are willing to make a judgment against a Christian brother based on hearing only one side of the story. We all know that biblical wisdom requires more of us than that (Prov. 18:17). Why the presumption of guilt after only hearing one side?

I wonder if those who issue condemnation against Mahaney now would be willing to live by their own standard of damnation. If they were accused of covering-up abuse and if they were innocent of the charges, would they be willing to acquiesce to false charges? Would they appreciate being tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion before anyone was able to hear exculpatory evidence? My hunch is that they would not.

The abuse allegations are horrific. I can barely stand to read them. Which is all the more reason why we don’t want to sweep away the righteous with the wicked in a rush to condemn the abuse.

Has C.J. ever responded publicly to this controversy and explained his side of the story. Seems to me instead of asking for the case to be dismissed he should have welcomed the chance to defend himself in court.

I certainly agree that there needs to be transparency at the organizational level that allows for proper feedback and reporting. However, to say that the closing of comments on an article is somehow breaking that is a bit of a stretch. They posted an article and didn’t wish that particular article to be deluged with comments. There’s no inherent right that says we need to be allowed to comment on their FaceBook page. By closing the comments they have not only closed off any comments against, but as well any comments in support. Perhaps they don’t believe that an on-line discussion is the best venue to discuss such a thorny issue. That, like it or lump it, is their right. Send an e-mail, phone them, write a letter. There’s more than one avenue to have your say.

No problem… for my part I rescind the stamp of dork. 😉 And understand, I don’t mean for any rancor to come across.

I agree that there needs to be transparency. I agree that people who are in the situation need to be able to express their concerns and blow the whistle, so to speak. But, your personal experience notwithstanding, that does not mean that they are required to make their blog posting open to public comment. I can agree with the guts of what you’re saying… I just don’t think we can use the closing of comments on a blog piece as the poster child example of the problem. That’s all I’m saying. A desire to close off comments on a blog, or FaceBook, may indeed be indicative of their modus operandi, but it may not. In my view it’s just a week place to try and prove your point.

This discussion does however bring to mind an interesting point of discussion for me. Why is it that our culture now feels that anyone and everyone should have the right to speak into a situation and be listened to?

There may indeed be aspects of this situation that deserve to be made public. That should happen. their may indeed be parts of this situation that are no one’s business. The masses should then butt out. Where do we draw the line?

True enough, but why offer support? It seems that we should suspend judgment on the matter. If Mahaney was part of a scheme that failed to report abuse to the proper authorities, then what he did was not unlike what Joe Paterno did. That, of course, is not proven, but neither is it disproven. More investigation is needed.

If C J Mahaney and his people devised an approach to church discipline that entailed not reporting alleged crimes to proper civil authorities, then they were in violation of the law. This is similar to a situation from years ago when Gary Ezzo’s son-in-law “borrowed” thousands of dollars from the Growing Families International accounts, then later Ezzo told their accounting firm that it had been a loan (which it evidently had not been). The accounting firm dropped them like a hot potato. Also, I do not understand the Baptists’ lockstep support for a Charismatic ministry that doesn’t practice congregational polity. The SGM polity of “elder rule”, in which the elders are self-appointed and can’t be removed by the congregation, is ripe for abuse.